EDITOR—Leibovici used rigorous scientific method in his study to explore the role of intercessory prayer in health care.1 Using a randomised controlled trial design with a large group of patients and selecting a range of appropriate outcome measures, he showed a significant difference in length of stay and duration of fever and concluded that prayer may be a useful treatment.

These results, however, need to be interpreted with caution. There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the most clinically important outcome (mortality), and the median values varied little between prayer and non-prayer on both length of stay (seven and eight days) and duration of fever (two days each). The religious affiliation of the person saying the prayer is not given. Many religious groups do not accept the power of prayer given by those with different beliefs. If real, the effect of prayer shown in this study may be unrelated to supernatural power and hence to a particular belief system, or may be specific to beliefs, reflecting the power inherent in a particular religion. Further work is needed in this area before conclusions can be made.

EDITOR—It was very brave of both Leibovici and the BMJ to publish this paper and be prepared for the criticism from the outraged masses.1 The idea that retroactive intercessory prayers could have an influence on the outcome of septicaemia is intriguing and challenges our notions of cause and effect. If it is true, however, this is not the paper to prove it.

The data on the most significant finding, length of stay, seem to be skewed by a few abnormally high results in the control group. This is shown by the fact that the median length of stay is the same in both groups but the maximum length …

Get access to this article and to all of thebmj.com for 14 daysSign up today for a 14 day free trial